Replies

Now you are being weaselly. The entire point is that they are selling edited versions as heard on the radio. That one simple fact negates the whole "they aren't selling them" argument. They are selling them. And besides you are just wrong. They companies are the same. You can even purchase the CDs from the radio stations' web site.

That's a ridiculous line of argument and you know it. That is in no way comparable to this article. Those companies are not taking products, altering them without authorization and then selling them without authorization. "Purchase CDs from the radio stations' web site" - surely you weren't being serious when you said this. They were selling the product - not making it to sell! Not the same context at all as what the person you responded to had been saying. Come on.

That's a ridiculous line of argument and you know it.

No, the point he was making was that the fact that the product was being sold made the difference -- that although artists have allowed edited versions to be broadcast because the FCC forces them to, no artist had allowed an edited version to be sold. The example I gave proved that edited versions of artistic products are indeed sold with permission of the artist. That makes the "selling" side of the artistic integrity argument moot. It is a valid line of argument.